IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Wed, 20 January 2021 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25B83A122D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 06:39:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iGGLybKAxzSx for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 06:39:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 298EB3A141A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 06:39:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com with SMTP id o186so5355786vso.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 06:39:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Rp6/NzYQDKO2vFvgch911G/CnQOE/r3iztbYmWrsWEE=; b=aFw1mHCWSleXc1FpnyDW+EOHSm2/jZaKB2JnIf36JxFnaBhrOysScH3eAiPlHEbjAW 6zSPGUerKHL7ZWrG8wF/BuwctfrWi3HqrJaeRfwJAD1YcLE16HJsaJs+aJOmD9gIzyZV 3I4vRaPlys20+/la1IdEBagt8S3wFKbsAhMJta8i3sqWBB/3wtalbyl4z6vQAhocliEi un1CnaERiyE11iLfA+X2DXOnbj+fmmlOXCTQfSHWZenhn/f6xPBXChODskf7KXa38L25 r+qOYVSXRBJkYA3gqrEqo6/nPHwZcnaRtTJMOq0CQ0e4tkRJG3n4Kj4PkFvJA20cUNrK GSzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Rp6/NzYQDKO2vFvgch911G/CnQOE/r3iztbYmWrsWEE=; b=GBPh+7Z77VydMhJUQ3/ef4hOBL6BK04+wPML+0/otJpPSvBC7k8txrt0Ga5SSTu0dS 1Fk1cYD1urbW/76KcWDtr0SmoNSwA2/oWgR/71gDbkVjmw8xHPLHNc+ofhQWIvcepX38 RApeuijj2nXhNKvc3/obhCiefSVtPMgfsEz5Y1pUa/7C3HNE4BRLlANNs+YkxAKBVaWl NxDG39nTrrQHn+7a0cDbwbfH4HmQYuEpLTUBGjCFlfd11Tq7K9K/ATrLJQYNMjN6dzdE 2ZN4Jw7y69fsxbbHVys+SIj36KBpsqA559erf3i9M8F5Bht24BVkgbD3d7Mavcgb7ZEP kB9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5334UHWsmkG1wU6iVDE1UKtBKNRjix4I+eck25f5LnII94OZE8pF Tn2fgZgchV9FLU17kHW3YFr8r/QIV0sOvt/KeoU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwl8D5KBeM5TpsmHHtRTBbUwRlOPIXtHAVhSCieZ9xxRKNOkBtGLvwCGuWB575Fs/sZZevZh9UCT5hMVYot4wI=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:c29e:: with SMTP id k30mr3042243vsj.45.1611153555023; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 06:39:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADyWQ+Fb93SkiAnL4cuCfxC5Wi1ERLeKhguWqAp3j8YEa6JBSA@mail.gmail.com> <87ima4wu3s.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <CAL0qLwbiOrgsEjZU_V6W8e42SRNoUh7CzyngRMR5RLeQpzrxaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48ZfwOdZcJz02a76wktQDpV_dpPHKw+qJjE2ZCDvOqF3Ptdw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZf+tEGZj0T6UmaNBSMC-nqSpfb5DAFh8+GDuP6F5pRkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48ZfxJBwROXjtTr0YCOtBN0h_Q=jU559fAnUUNRpFjvEinRA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYhjRx0nomXe_3KcKXTAmONce4bw6K6YLnNRLZJCzoYBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYhjRx0nomXe_3KcKXTAmONce4bw6K6YLnNRLZJCzoYBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 09:39:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH48ZfxYvCWROPROWZ5m844qxTRMNoMLtkMnAEtQnz4Yk00TkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000536b2e05b955eb9e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/cTbqSZQJEcaFYZI53B40AW_HDLE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:39:18 -0000

I am happy to postpone the topic in the interest of moving the experiment
forward.
Ticket 97 has been created to discuss it later.


On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 6:23 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 2:11 PM Douglas Foster <
> dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No Murray, I was speaking to the PSD document.
>>
>> PSD's entire purpose is to detect abuse of non-existent organizational
>> domains, so the definition of non-existent is crucial to its success.    I
>> believe the current language will produce false positives, albeit probably
>> a small number.    The current language is also more resource-intensive
>> than mine, although that is not my concern.
>>
>
> What I mean is: If we say PSD experiment participants evaluate the notion
> of "non-existent" differently than vanilla DMARC implementations, we have
> to account for that when interpreting the results of the experiment.  But
> the experiment as crafted is just to determine if the PSD algorithm as
> proposed is a useful improvement.  It seems to me that changing the nature
> of that test at the same time is scope creep that muddies the waters.
>
> -MSK
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email